You speak Manglish?



Rabia Abubakar

I was walking past a counter when what I heard stopped me in my tracks. A customer was waiting to collect some documents and the person attending to her asked: "Do you in a rush?"

At first, I wondered whether I misheard the question but it was loud and clear. The question was also put in such a nice and polite way that I could almost believe that it was grammatically correct.

As I continued to my destination, it became my mantra. I was amused at how confident the young lady sounded posing the question. It just so happened that prior to the incident I had read a hilarious article of two American brothers on an odyssey in West Africa, dwelling on their brush with corruption and the language barrier. What interested me the most was not the journey itself but one of the brother's valiant attempts to use Pidgin English (a compound of some elements of the local language and the English language).

I am a West African with a watered-down British accent but you wouldn't catch me speaking pidgin without armour to protect me from the laughter that will definitely assail me. So a picture of an American trying to talk in Pidgin English was just too much to take in. I was chuckling away while reading the article. I guess it just means that in a lot of countries where English is widely spoken, people have formed their own ways of expressing themselves in the language. It doesn't have to be correct but it is understood among the people.

In West Africa people speak pidgin, which is really English hacked to pieces beyond recognition. Manglish (Malaysian English) is also a form of pidgin.

"Do you in a rush?" might be termed as Manglish, as it could have been what the lady might have said had she been speaking in her language or it could have just been a bad case of the grammar bug. Even though I caught on to the meaning I guess a native English speaker might find it a tad difficult to fathom.

What I am trying to say is that Pidgin, Manglish or other forms of the English language are part and parcel of who we are. However, we must also remember to learn to communicate effectively in English so that we are not embarrassed in formal situations like in the office or at important events and conferences.

I may not speak Pidgin English but my country people are surprised when they realise that I can understand "Wetin you talk?" translated into "What are you saying?", "You wan go market?" (Do you want to go to the market?) or "Na oyinbo dat wan" roughly meaning "She thinks she is a white person" (orang putih or mat salleh in Bahasa Malaysia).

I am sure Malaysians or other foreigners who visit a West African country for the first time and hear this sort of hacked English will find it a conundrum just like foreigners who come to Malaysia and hear Manglish.

My first experience with Manglish was in my second week in Malaysia. My friend and I were waiting at the bus stop. Her bus came along while I was still waiting for mine so she said, "I go first, lah"

In Malaysia the ubiquitous "lah" and "mah" are discourse particles used in most phrases. These expressions did not come as a total surprise because in my country we have the equivalent, "sha", which I grew fond of using after a short stay in a local boarding school. I must say that my joy at finding a new word was short-lived, as my mother was not amused.

At a time when everyone is scrambling to be proficient in English, the butchered forms of English are frowned upon. However, language in any form is part of culture. We have to understand that not everyone is able to speak "global English" (whatever that may be), therefore, knowing how to speak Manglish or other hatched forms of the English language can come in handy. We can also learn a lesson or two from the chameleons, those who for example, can switch from Manglish to the Queen's English without skipping a beat.

Rabia is a mass communications graduate with a passion for writing.

Neophobia at the dawn of minds



Zedeck Siew

Two films from current Malaysian celluloid: the sequel to 2004's Sepet, Yasmin Ahmad's issue-heavy love story Gubra; road film and musical, Amir Muhammad's Lelaki Komunis Terakhir, (The Last Communist) which traces the towns visited by Chin Peng from his birth to independence.

Three reactions: public intellectual Faisal Tehrani's review of Gubra, Gubra Yang Sesat Lagi Menyesatkan (tehranifaisal.blogspot.com, April 24); the banning of Lelaki Komunis Terakhir by the Home Ministry after it passed uncut through the Film Censorship Board; and the Mufti Johor, Datuk Noh Gadut, calling the house-chore-helping husband an instance of "fenomena songsang" worthy of fatwa. (Utusan Malaysia, May 13)

"Before this, men doing housework wasn't an issue," says Toni Kasim, an activist who runs workshops on gender and sexuality issues and frequently works with the Muslim NGO Sisters in Islam (SIS). "Why is it an issue now?"

On April 23, film producer Raja Azmi Raja Sulaiman appeared on TV1's art forum programme Fenomena Seni (that, in a following episode, had panellists justifying vicious gossip as a way of chastening the behaviour of entertainment personalities), accusing Gubra of defiling Malay-Muslim culture - partly because a bilal was shown frying keropok in the kitchen. Her rationale: "A pious wife would not allow her husband to cook." (theSun, April 26).

The feud between Raja Azmi and Yasmin Ahmad is a matter of public opinion. More worrying, Toni contends, is the fact that people like Raja Azmi and entertainment editor Akmal Abdullah (who was also on the programme) now appear to have power to trump due process and sway official reactions, under the umbrella reason that these films attack Malay-Muslim values.

"Lelaki Komunis Terakhir is passed uncut by the Censorship Board," Toni says, "It is shown at a private screening for police officers who also had no problems with it, then all of a sudden Berita Harian publishes articles berating the film, asking people loaded questions like: 'How do you feel about a movie that glorifies communism?', and Amir receives a letter from the Home Ministry saying that he can't screen the film here."

The film neither glorifies the communist struggle nor justifies Chin Peng's actions; it attempts to explore the Malaysia as the future-communist leader might have seen it, by speaking to people from the towns he lived in and satirising propaganda images of the era - Toni was part of the film's chorus, and performed, among other things, a song about how much she loved her identity card.

"If I was a filmmaker I would be so discouraged," Toni says. "Because you never know when the stupidest of reasons, put forth by people who haven't even seen the film, might cause the powers that be to ban your film."

Lelaki Komunis Terakhir has since traversed more surreal territory: after the ban, a screening was organised for Members of Parliament and media on May 21 (a gonzo documentary of which now exists on YouTube in four parts, for the curious) after which Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Rais Yatim said the movie was "Not important enough to be controversial," - on May 24 he then gives an interview, saying that Lelaki Komunis Terakhir "glorified Chin Peng, and we shouldn't glorify him".

A screening of the film was then organised for senators; this was subsequently cancelled, implying that proper channels are being violated at all levels of the issue. "So MPs can see it but senators can't," Toni says, "What does this say about Parliament?" A salient point, considering that the Dewan Negara functions as a balance to the Dewan Rakyat, essential to democratic governance.

Censorship without the inclusion of brains is bad enough. More insidious is, perhaps, the fact that criticisms, allegedly made in the defence of Malay-Muslim mores, carry more weight for the same reason - godless communism is the traditional enemy of Islam; the bilal cooking keropok will bring about a collapse of the family values - what next? Working wives, house-husbands, Akhirat?

Or so it seems. "If husbands doing chores is considered haram, what do we do about the fact that the Prophet himself was under his wife's employ?" Toni says. "Some will argue that the Prophet only helped her and wasn't a full-on house-husband as such - but the fact remains that Khadijah was a businesswoman - in fact, the equivalent to one of today's millionaires. The notion that men are the sole bread-winners of a household may very well be 'un-Islamic'."

Gubra's bilal-chef is only a threat to Islamic family law as it is practised in Malaysia, and the related crusade to make secular legislation defer to Syariah law; this is what Toni and her colleagues are trying to fight.

The opposition is formidable. It is also deaf. Toni talks of how she was heckled over the phone a day ago, because of SIS's involvement in the Article 11 issue.

Ad hominem arguments and name-calling are common in national discourse, especially on issues like religion. Such things are easy to counter. More difficult are the arguments such as is emblemised by young and formerly-liberal thinker Faisal Tehrani, whose review of Gubra quotes a selection of hadiths, employs myriad Arabicisms, and concludes: 'Kalau tak reti agama jangan syarahkan agama dalam filem. Jangan rosakkan orang.'

This piece of criticism, when it surfaced, shocked artistic and intellectual circles, not the least for fact that until a few years ago Faisal was frequently seen in the same circles as other such Malay intellectuals such as Farish Noor and Amir Muhammad, well-known for discourse that challenges or subverts mainstream socio-political norms. Jerome Kugan, who wrote the lyrics for Lelaki Komunis Terakhir, wrote in a Kakiseni.com comment following Toni's review of Gubra: ' Damn, that was scary for me to read as a non-Malay Faisal's comments (and the comments on his comments) - along with those imbecilic interjections on the TV1 show - reveal something I think is really ugly about what the NEP and Mahathir era have managed to produce: the dream of a far right homogenous Malay-Islam nation.'

The "comments on his comments" referred to on Faisal's site generally had the tone of: "Wow, Faisal, you have articulated my gut feelings in an intellectually rigorous way. Thanks!"

Gubra and Lelaki Komunis Terakhir have been attacked for different reasons: the former for containing a plural interpretation of Islam; the latter for a (merely!) perceived love of 'anti-religious' communism - itself an erroneous point; the Peace Village in South Thailand, current resting place of Parti Komunis Malaya, is divided into Malay and non-Malay communities, with religious sensitivities in mind.

Both these offensives have a root: ethnic politics as it is played out in this country, and its adherent's struggle to defend the hegemony. This struggle is powerful, trumping state-sanctioned procedure, like the 'Pope and Tsar' of Marx's Europe; it is deaf, it is uncomprehending. Our misunderstood spectre is multiculturalism, and it haunts us still.

Zedeck Siew, college-going and pretentious, is into aesthetics, civilisational advancement, and the lethality of tea. Send comments to Feedback@thesundaily.com.

A fundamental problem with rules



Chan Kheng Hoe

Our National Fatwa Council has done it again. After presumably extensive research, countless hours of debate and in-depth study into the Holy Books, they have reached the undeniable conclusion that the practice of "kongsi raya" needs to be re-considered. The reason? It may compromise the faith of Muslims who attend such functions.

This begs the question, is our faith determined by the functions we attend? Does going to the mesjid make us Muslims, and going to the temple make us Buddhists? If that is so, I am afraid that our dear prime minister may have compromised his faith because I clearly remember reading about him attending a Christmas celebration organised by the churches.

Faith is essentially about the unseen. It is not necessary when a fact is evident. The seed of faith springs from our hearts. With our hearts we believe in God, and from our hearts, some of us choose not to believe. Is a person murtad because he sins? Clearly not, otherwise the whole nation will be full of apostates. He can murtad only in the heart. His lifestyle, at best, are mere signposts to indicate the condition of his heart.

So, let's consider the elements of "kongsi raya" that make it so deplorable. To my mind, "kongsi raya" essentially comprises families dressed in nice clothes eating cookies and talking courteously with each other with some form of music playing in the background. If that's deemed a threat to the faith of a person, that person's faith can't be very secure in the first place.

If we're bent on banning corrupting elements, let's consider banning other things as well. Perhaps we can ban the World Cup due to the exposed body parts of both males and females displayed occasionally when a goal is scored. It wouldn't hurt us at all since we are never represented in the World Cup anyway.

Or we could ban Bursa Malaysia. Speculation in securities beyond any logic and economic fundamentals is clearly acknowledged even by non-Muslims to be akin to gambling. Coupled with the fact that the KLCI dipped below 900 points recently, all the more we should ban the Bursa.

Of course, to be fair, the attempt to maintain the "purity" of faith is not confined to Muslims alone. Fundamentalists from all faiths have always sought to keep their faithful on the straight and narrow path by a plethora of rules. At the heart of the rules, however, is not faith but fear. There is an underlying fear among all fundamentalists of every religious persuasion that without the rules, their flock will somehow go astray. Unfortunately, the Almighty God is deemed not mighty enough to keep the faith of the faithful.

Then there is also the fear of syncretism. Wikipedia defines syncretism as the attempt to reconcile disparate, even opposing beliefs, in order to assert an underlying unity. Hence, a syncretist may marry opposing principles of different religions to create new tenets of faith. In the worst case scenario, syncretism would recognise another deity or god alien or even opposed to the original faith.

If that's indeed the fear, I would like to let all fundamentalists in on a secret. Syncretism is already here. It is in fact thriving in our society. It does not manifest itself during "kongsi raya" functions. Years of living under the Damocles' sword of oppressive laws have ensured that every Malaysian knows how to respect another person's faith very well.

Instead, syncretism, like its counterpart faith, also springs from our hearts. Fundamentalist rulings can remove the faithful from the world, but they cannot remove the worldliness embedded in the hearts of the faithful.

Yes, there is an alternative deity in Malaysia. He is worshipped profusely. His adherents do not stray from his teachings, for his teachings are buried deep within their hearts. We have "Friday Muslims", "Wesak Buddhists" and "Sunday Christians", but the followers of this deity are faithful seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Even when they attend the mesjid, temple or church, their thoughts remain faithful to this deity alone.

Who is this pretender to the throne, who has displaced the Almighty, and permeated Malaysian society today with the tentacles of his influence? Let me declare to you now his name, and you judge for yourselves whether you had in the past fallen on your knees to worship him. He is none other than Materialism, the deity embodying the love of money.

Perhaps next year, the Fatwa Council can consider banning "kongsi kaya" instead.

Kheng Hoe is a former fundamentalist who has changed his mind. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com

Whe the cops went CRAP...

Police group's protest just out of this world

When the idea of an independent body to look into complaints against the police force was mooted about a year ago, this scribe was among the minority who argued that there is no necessity for it.

I had then argued that what the country needs is a body that looks into complaints against government servants and all government departments.

I had reasoned that zooming in on our policemen would not do anyone any good, because abuses not only take place in the police force, but in every government department. I had suggested an ombudsman, which was subsequently echoed by the minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz.

Just like good cops and bad cops, there are good civil servants and equally bad ones. Therefore, if a body is set up to look into police complaints, shouldn't there be a similar body for the customs department, the department of environment and so on?

Those countering my views were quick to point out that there already exists an organisation - the Public Complaints Bureau (PCB) - which undertakes those functions.

But not many are aware that the PCB is nothing but a postman, who receives a complaint from Joe Public and forwards it to the relevant department for "appropriate action."

Whether the department takes action or dumps the complaint in the waste paper basket, the PCB does not know. If the department does not reply, the PCB sends a reminder. If the reminder is ignored, there's nothing that can be done.

My views have not changed and they are not likely to change in the near future, but what I read in the official website of the Royal Malaysian Police over the weekend caused some serious concern.

One of the three groups representing police officers has challenged the system and to put it bluntly, has issued an ultimatum to the government - go ahead (with the independent body) and you'll face the consequences.

First and foremost, let's accept the fact that the police officers have a right to their views, however right or however wrong, and that a person no less than the prime minister listened to their views.

After having done that, why are challenges and ultimatums issued to the government?

Among other things, the group wants to embark on a nationwide road show to explain its stand to the people.

It also wants to reject the RM100 allowance and demand to have an eight-hour-five-day-week schedule.

There's also a suggestion that investigation officers resign en-masse, among other "out of this world" suggestions.

Under the heading "Lost (sic) of powers by politicians" The group says: "The explicit and implicit effect of the formation of an independent body is that the real organ which exercise powers of control over the police will be the commissioners of the body and NOT the minister. Let politicians beware that they will eventually lose powers, control and influence over a neutral, professional and people-centered Police (as suggested by the Royal Commission)."

It appears that the group has jumped the gun as to how this body will look into complaints. It may have wrongly judged the operations of the body by claiming that "conducting investigations and hearings outside the purview of rules and practices of evidence, and no right of appearance or representation in a hearing go against the grain of the Rule of Law."

"This blatant infringement of rights cannot be countenanced under any pretext," it says.

"It is settled law that right to be heard cannot be denied to a condemned person. If a hearing is done behind his back, he is tried in absentia. He has the right to know and be allowed to examine evidence against him. The rules of natural justice are the minimum standards of fair decision-making imposed on persons and consists of the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias," it adds.

How did the union come to the conclusion that accused persons would not be given the right to be heard?

The union may be right in assuming that when the independent body is formed, it has disciplinary powers over members of the force including dismissal and reduction in rank.

It is also right to say that these powers are currently within the domain of the Police Force Commission, a constitutional body headed by the Minister-in-charge of the police.

But it is untenable for the group to argue that an organ created by an Act of Parliament can usurp the function of a body which is a creature of the Constitution.

There will be complications as well, since the same body has no power to hire but endowed with the right to fire.

The group may have good grounds to protest and have reasonable points to present. However, what is worrisome is the fact that the group has not fully utilised the internal grievance handling procedures before resorting to such threats. The PM and the government has always advocated the notion of "consultation, not confrontation."

So, let's use the existing systems in place before this whole issue becomes a tussle for supremacy between the force and the administration.

It is heartening to note that the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Mohd Bakri Omar has distanced himself from the posting of the group's thoughts on the website. But the sad thing is, everytime someone down the line does something silly, he is on the firing line.

R. Nadeswaran is Deputy Editor (special reporting and investigations) at theSun. He can be reached at citizen-nades@thesundaily.com

A tribute...

A tribute to Ahmad Noordin Zakaria

In his private life, Tan Sri Ahmad Noordin Zakaria was as low-key as one could be, so much so that when he passed away last week, the event went practically unnoticed.

The funeral of a truly great Malaysian hero took place with no fanfare and no remembrance by much of the nation which is really a great pity because he was an outstanding icon for all upstanding, incorruptible and dedicated civil servants.

He served as Auditor-General from 1975-1986, undoubtedly Malaysia's most famous one, and brought a new meaning to the word for a generation of Malaysians who had not heard that word before.

He did this by simply keeping an eagle eye on government expenditure and bringing to the public view many instances of excessive expenditure. But sadly, despite his disclosures, the wastage kept taking place.

He refused to be cowed by any other influence and persisted in doing his job faithfully and with dedication despite snide remarks by those in power which included the Prime Minister for part of that period Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Ahmad Noordin also headed the commission which investigated the Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal, Malaysia's first big financial scandal, when government-owned Bank Bumiputra, through its subsidiary, lost some RM2 billion by dubious lending in Hongkong in the late seventies and early eighties.

That was talk of the town for many months, especially after an auditor sent by Bank Bumiputra to investigate the case in Hongkong was murdered and his body dumped in a banana plantation.

Ahmad Noordin and his team investigated the BMF scandal in his trademark, no-favours style and the revelations implicated complicity at some levels of government causing some irritation to Mahathir when it was made public in the eighties. Mahathir was reported to have said: "You have created doubts and suspicion about them without their being able to clear themselves. It is elementary justice that people must be allowed to give their side of the story."

After he retired from public life, Ahmad Noordin was not the sort to seek publicity. But he left a legacy behind which showed that it was possible for a civil servant to do his job and do his job well.

This was what he had to say when he received the Ramon Magsaysay for government service in 1985, a year before he retired: "I have been given

this award for just doing the work for which I get paid. I did not think much about getting recognition. If the result of what I am doing in the line of duty has brought about an impact of some benefit to society, that in itself, is already reward enough for me."

If only more people did the work for which they got paid.

Featured conversation...

Stepping forth to explain



Zainon Ahmad and Jacqueline Ann Surin

A group of Muslim professionals, mostly doctors and lawyers, are beginning to make waves in their attempt to explain and clarify some misconceptions about Islam that have emerged during the current unstructured public debate about the religion, the manner in which it is practised in this country and their implications on others. Formed less than two years ago, the Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF) also attributes the misconceptions to the distortions of mainstream Islam by 'fundamentalists' and 'hyperliberals'. The forum seeks to address these issues in English because it is in the English media that much of the debate on these controversies is raging, MPF chairman Dr Mazeni Alwi tells ZAINON AHMAD and JACQUELINE ANN SURIN.

theSun: Can you tell us a little about the Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF). I know it was officially launched in August of 2004. Who are the founding members and what was the motivation for setting it up?

The founding members basically are a group of friends, and many of them are actually from the medical profession, and then also a few other professionals like lawyers.

And the reason why we set this up, we felt there was a need to address some of these issues in the English language. It's not that we have any problems with the Malay language but I think a lot of the controversies are in the English media.

And there are two, basically, two trends which we feel are not really representative of mainstream Islam. One is the fundamentalists, called the fanatics, or whatever people call them. That term, I think, is very loaded but people understand when you say 'fundamentalist', it means people who have a rather extreme view of Islam. And we don't think that's representative of Islamic teaching.

And on the other hand also, a very liberal re-interpretation of Islam which we don't think accords well with mainstream beliefs, mainstream teachings that Muslims uphold.

So, basically these are the two trends that we felt need to be addressed and that's why we set it (the MPF) up.

And we plan to do it in a way which is non-confrontational, you know, if possible through dialogue, through publication. And we think that whatever that is not within the law is not appropriate for us, especially as professionals.

I read your website (www.mpf.org.my) and it says that one of the things that you all are very concerned with is 'hyperliberal Islam'. Do you see a threat of hyperliberal Islam in Malaysia?

Aah, not exactly in terms of violence, whatever it is. But in terms of what Muslims uphold. I think sensitive matters like the syariah (Islamic law) and all which is being challenged in ways which can be detrimental to the harmony of the nation and also to the unity of Muslims.

We feel that some of these issues have their relevance, have their social and historical relevance, and we have no problems about people wanting to express their views about Islam, how they live their lives whether as Muslims or non-Muslims, how much piety they want to have.

But I think when they want to impose these on mainstream Muslims, then that's a problem because a lot of Muslims still are very traditional. They hold to traditional teachings, and therefore trying to make Malay society very liberal can be detrimental.

Can you cite an example so that it becomes a bit clearer?

For example, the issue of hijab, the tudung (head cover). We disagree that it should be imposed.

But we also know and I think people should understand that it comes from the sources of Islamic teaching. To question that it is not Islamic, that it is just a local (cultural practice), that it is, ah, that it must be imposed in a Muslim society, is wrong. But then again, it is something which is from the Islamic teachings, but it is up to people's choice to wear or not to wear. That's one.

And number two, I think the polygamy issue. I think a lot of the family law aspects of the syariah which is being questioned and we feel that this, ah, people have the right to question but then again to impose it and to say that, 'This is un-Islamic. This is not from Islam', is a bit overboard.

But a particular viewpoint about syariah is being imposed. So, who decides then which viewpoint should be imposed?

I think the authorities have the right to do it. And they get feedback from society.

So, it is perfectly within the rights of any Muslim to give their feedback but then again, it can be a very minority view. And they must not say that, they must not complain when it is not adoptedlah because the majority still wants to uphold a view which is more conservative.

As long as it doesn't, it doesn't infringe on the rights of non-Muslims, I think that is fair.

How is MPF different from other Muslim organisations? Because there are already several out there.

Oh, yes, yes. We are, I suppose, one, we tend to express a lot of our ideas, a lot of our views using the English language and in the English media because we felt that the Malay media and all that is fairly well served by the other organisations, more established organisations, as well as by the authorities.

And a lot of the controversies that are actually being played out (are) within the English media. That is one.

And number two, we are very new. And we are rather small, and ah (chuckles), we don't think we are elitist but most of our members are from those who have higher education and also probably trained abroad, myself included, but not everyone.

So, who are your members and how many do you have?

Oh, not very many. Maybe 30 plus or so, including our spouses.

We don't aim for big numbers. We just aim for having a platform to express our views. This is not meant to be a social organisation. It's just meant to be a platform whereby we can, are able to, express our views on certain matters that we think are important to society.

Somebody said to me in the course of talking about MPF that most of your members were formerly members of JIM (Jemaah Islah Malaysia). Is that right?

Oh, no, no. I, myself, am not a member of any organisation. As far as I know, only one, Dr Musa Nordin, he's from JIM. But the rest are not.

It's not a spillover from another organisation?

Ah, no, no, no. We are, most of us are above 40, so we are old enough not to be embroiled in inter-organisational conflicts (chuckles).

What kind of main activities have you all had so far?

Over the past two years, there are two, I think you can classify into two broad aspects. One is dealing with what our objectives are. So that constitutes holding talks, seminars.

And number two, we try to do a bit of charity work. For example, for Aceh after the tsunami. We spent quite a bit on that because we sponsored about 100 medical students who were in their final year but lost their parents and their sources of funding. Most of them have already graduated actually.

Plus a few other charitable works but this is not our main focus. Our main focus is basically participating in important issues that affect our society through discussion. So a lot of it is through our writings, our website writings as well as our newsletter.

Have you had forums or conferences?

One seminar. One or two public forums.

And have those been well received?

Depends on what you mean by 'well received'. Like, some of them, yes. Some of them, not so. We've had visitors from, most of these visitors are actually visitors from abroad who come to Malaysia either on our invitation or they came for some other purposes, and we take the opportunity to have them speak at our forums.

Well, one observer has also said that the MPF is like a mirror organisation or a counterweight to an organisation like, say, Sisters in Islam (SIS).

Aah, I suppose, I don't know whether, that is not, we don't really exist because we want to counterweight SIS. It happens that some of the issues that we deal with are also issues that are being dealt with or being promoted by SIS. And so, it happens to be that way.

But our objective is not to counter any existing organisation.

Do you agree that holding kongsi raya (joint festive) celebrations and open houses would erode the faith of Muslims and could lead to blasphemy as suggested by Perak Mufti Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria (on behalf of the National Fatwa Committee on June 13)?

I think, firstly, Datuk Seri Harussani's view needs to be seen not in the context where Hari Raya today has been stripped of its religious meaning to degenerate into a consumerist indulgence of excessive consumption, wastage and banal TV entertainment.

Eidul Fitri (Hari Raya Puasa) marks the end of the fasting of Ramadan and payment of zakat (tithe), the third and fourth pillars of Islam that aim to bring back the believers to the state of fitra (original, purified state).

Eidul Adha (Hari Raya Haji) marks the fifth pillar of Islam, the hajj, and serves to remind Muslims of Prophet Abraham's mission and sacrifice in bringing the concept of tauhid (one-ness of God, the principal Islamic doctrine) into man's consciousness.

Both have very much to do with doctrine and rituals of worship, so it doesn't make much sense for those who don't believe in them to kongsi or share.

Conversely, the Hindu and Christian festivities have their own religious meanings which we respect but do not share. The national holidays dedicated to them is a way of showing that respect. I think it is in this sense that it needs to be seen.

Secondly, I am not sure if genuine harmony and understanding can be achieved by stripping these festivities of their spiritual significance so that they can be kongsi-ed by all Malaysians. In other words, does exclusivity always mean mistrust and prejudice? Going by what we see today, all that consumption and waste has only produced more Islamophobia and conversely, I think Muslims in general don't really understand better the essence of the other religions in Malaysia.

As we said earlier, it would be much more meaningful if we all tried to understand our religions better and try to practise their teachings as sincerely as we can in the face of relentless secularisation.

As a lay person, I am not very sure if offering greetings to our close friends and accepting invitations to their houses during these festivities - something that I do - amounts to that (blasphemy). I think we need to have more feedback from the public and deliberation by the scholars before this is adopted as government policy.

What do you think of the proposal (also announced by Harussani) for the government to set up a monitoring body to stop the spread of liberal Islamic thinking, especially through the Internet?

Nothing can stop people from having their own personal opinions or taking information from the Net to form their own ideas of how things should be, in this case the interpretation of Islam. That is a right that has to be respected.

However, if liberal Islam is inimical to the government's view of how Islam should have its role in public life and in the administration of Muslim affairs as represented by the various religious institutions, authorities and think-tanks, monitoring and responding to it (liberal Islam) in a dignified manner that is within the limits of the law is fair.

As it is, I am sure the pronouncements of the mainstream ulama and scholars are also being monitored and responded to by those who disagree with them. It is a normal societal affair.

I know that the MPF was part of a delegation that met with (Minister in the Prime Minister's Department) Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri (Abdul Aziz) at Parliament (in March), and a comment was made about non-Muslims speaking out on Islamic issues.

(In that meeting, a few representatives expressed unhappiness at 'the interference of non-Muslims, ignorant in Islamic texts and jurisprudence, in what is clearly an Islamic issue'.)

Ah, ok.

Does MPF believe that non-Muslims shouldn't talk about Islamic issues?

It depends. I think for cases like the Moorthy (the family of Everest climber, the late M. Moorthy, could not bury him according to Hindu rites because he had converted to Islam without their knowledge) and the Nyonya (Tahir who had left Islam and whose children wanted to bury her according to Buddhist rites) cases, I think that's perfectly, it's valid grounds for non-Muslims to have their say.

But, some other things, like for example, that is involved in Islamic teaching like polygamy and the hijab and all that, though there is the right of everyone to express any opinion, but then again, I think sensitivities need to be observed that can make some people upset.

We are mature enough to accept that kind of thing, but I think (with) the wider society, there needs to be some care.

Especially the doctrinal?

Yes, correct. Because it doesn't affect non-Muslims so for them to just do it (question may not be acceptable). We (Muslims) don't really question any of the Hindus or the Christians, in the same way, we expect non-Muslims to respect the doctrinal, ritual aspects of Islam.

But perhaps it's because Islam has an impact on public policy.

That is true.

And in the case of say, S. Shamala (who found that her estranged and converted husband could unilaterally convert their children to Islam), even though she is a non-Muslim, she is affected by Islamic legislation in this country to some extent.

That is true. Whenever it affects (non-Muslims), same as in the Moorthy and Nyonya Tahir cases, it is perfectly legitimate (to question it).

But things that really concern Muslims and which do not affect non-Muslims, I think, not that we cannot say it, you have the right to do it, but then again, I think, in our plural society, there needs to be some care.

Sure, but then the teachings of other religions do not really affect Muslims in this country, right?

Of course. What I mean is that some of the teachings of Islam don't, but I think that as policy, yes, I agree that the government has the policy of, ah, apa (what)? Menerapkan nilai-nilai Islam (Applying Islamic values). Yes, that has some effect on the non-Muslims and that is stuff that is valid for you all to voice your opinion.

Because, sometimes, as (with) any government official, they can go a bit overboard and that might not sit very well with you all. For example, imposing some aspect of dress code on non-Muslims. I agree that you all have a right to voice out (against it).

But in matters like, for example, the hijab only for Muslims, then I think it won't be very nice because we are still very much an Asian traditional society. The respect that one needs to accord to another is still important.

What about hijab with regards to the Universiti Islam (International Islamic University) campus?

Right, I think if you make it very clear, for example, ya.

The hijab, in general, should not be imposed on anybody, even on Muslims, let alone non-Muslims. But I think for an institution which is being established in the name of Islam, I think it has the right to impose certain dress code. Just like a convent has a right to impose certain aspects of Christian rituals and dress.

And any institution which is established in the name of Islam has certain rights to impose that. It must be spelt out very clearly beforehand so that those who apply (to enter the university) know that this is the condition. You may apply but these are the conditions.

But in any other circumstances, for example, in public, there is no valid reason for anyone to impose any of these things, either on Muslims, let alone non-Muslims.

But even within Islamic jurisprudence, the court is still out on whether or not there should be a particular form of dress code for Muslim women.

I think that's not true.

There are differing view points among Muslim jurists about the tudung.

Not in the courts, but I think among Muslims, but not in the courts. Not in the law, but in matters of personal moral codes, there are (different views), I agree. But the mainstream views, the mainstream opinions, what you call the consensus among the scholars is what we have now.

The minority opinion is really minority.

But then if people want to uphold that (minority opinion), that is fine but it is their personal decision. But this is the mainstream consensus with regards to dress code among Muslim women.

Then what happens to wearing the tudung in the police parades (for Muslim and non-Muslim officers), for example? What do you think of that?

To me, I find that difficult. I find that difficult. But then again, I have no powers to say 'yes' or 'no' but in my opinion, I find that difficult.

But I think if the government makes it very clear before anyone joins the force, that for special ceremonial purposes, this is what you have to wear, then I think it's fine. But for now, there is none (no clear statement). I think that's the problem.

I think it needs to be spelt out very clearly what it involves. And I'm sure, not because the rule is there, I don't think it cannot be challenged. I think there is room for negotiation, there is room for dialogue. There's no need to go overboard on either side, to be really critical of one another in ways which are very unreasonable.

What is MPF's position on the proposed Inter-Faith Commis-sion (IFC)?

As a whole, I think that's a very difficult thing. Aah, we like people to be religious, whether they are Christians, Hindus or Sikhs. I think it's good for religious people to talk to one another, to promote harmony and understanding.

But I think the problem that we can find with the Inter-Faith Commission is that, aah, it is, it is, aah, trying to do it from above, not from below by establishing a body with statutory powers, ah, appointed by Parliament and maybe, the Agong. It has power even by the Constitution to force people to do dialogue.

To force people to dialogue?

Ya, I mean, it has the power to, for example, to summon religious leaders to settle disputes. I think that's not correct. I think harmony and understanding should come from below. Should come from religious leaders of their free will.

And, I think, ah (pauses), the main thing is that people must be sincere, they sincerely want to have an understanding and talk to one another.

The problem here, I suppose, is a lot of it has to do with the fact that many of the Muslim authorities and organisations were not represented. The way it was promulgated, the early stages of the institution for the proposal of the IFC was clouded in a lot of mystery, was clouded in a lot of secrecy.

I don't know, we did not exist at that time but from what I heard from people who attended the earlier meetings, they were not very happy with the way it was handled.

What we disagree is that dialogue should not be imposed from above by a body that is in power. It should come from below with the free will of individuals, various groups, people who are sincere.

But, still there are problems on the ground...

Of course, there are many! Any multi-religious society, there'll be problems.

Sure. So what other options for better dialogue or better mechanisms for resolution can MPF think of? I think the IFC was probably one proposed solution to some of the problems that have cropped up but obviously, it has its own problems as well. So, what other mechanisms could there potentially be?

I suppose, this is a question that is difficult that I've been thinking about, but I suppose in some ways the authorities must provide a platform, to invite bona fide, genuinely sincere people of all religious backgrounds from all the major religions to get together without imposing any restrictions.

And the purpose here must be sincerity.

So, you question the sincerity of the people behind the IFC?

Aah, from the Muslim side, yes.

You mean, the Muslims behind the IFC?

Yes.

Oh, ok.

Because there's a lot of Muslim NGOs (non-governmental organisations) and people from the mainstream, these are people who are for the mainstream Islamic interpretation.

But the rest, from the non-Muslim side, we don't really know. I don't know them personally, and also we were in existence only for the past one-and-a-half years, so we don't really know, we were not very much involved in what happened in the past few years.

Because, you see, this is very, very controversial among Muslims (in) that some people who are wanting to promote the Muslims to not uphold the mainstream views and teachings of Islam. So, that is the problem.

What about MPF's position on the notions of freedom of religion and apostasy?

Ah, well, that (freedom of religion) is in the Constitution, and we respect that, but I think there are also sub-clauses in that particular article with regards to Islam. I think that has to do with the political and historical background of the country, and that's why those clauses are put in.

And it's basically to protect sensitivities. And I think it is reasonable.

So, basically, in general, yes, of course, religion is something that involves conscience, so it must come from our own free will. So, we must respect that.

But, on the other hand, as we said before, there's the issue of sensitivities (that) must be respected and must be observed.

And also there's the issue of history, how Malaysia came about. And what was Malaysia before, and that is why those clauses are put in. They may not seem very fair, but basically, I think this is for the common good. It's to prevent any unnecessary anarchy and disharmony. That is very fundamental.

But, secondly, with regards to apostasy, again, this is something that has to do with conscience. And people can hide what their real religious feeling is and any Muslim who professes the faith can not follow the Islamic practices in their private lives. Nobody can question that. That is their right.

But, the problem is that once this is being (pauses) stated in public in a way that Muslims find insensitive, then that is the problem. I'm sure there are many Muslims who do not really care and do not really believe in Islamic teachings in their own private lives and they go on as they are. And that is perfectly ok.

But, the problem is when they start to make, ah, a very public statement out of it. And that can be too sensitive to some Muslims.

But if Islam is a religion that doesn't force somebody to believe...

True, true.

...and it's a religion that is not about compulsion...

True, true.

...then do you think that Muslims in this country should also have the right to also choose to leave the religion?

In fact, in theory, yes. But I think, as I said, in private lives, I'm sure that is perfectly fine. People do it here, there, in the past, in the present.

But, I think to make that as an official, as a public statement, it can be, in terms of sensitivity, it can be quite damaging.

How do you think this 'sensitivity' came about in Malaysian society?

Because the Malays are fairly conservative. They view Islam and Malay as inseparable. So, when someone leaves the religion, it is such a big thing. That is why.

And is this problematic at all, you think?

Yes, it is. It is problematic. For now, anyway. But, I think, as society progresses, it won't be like that anymore.

But, as it stands now, many Muslims find it difficult, and especially when it is in the context where it is seen as being encouraged by some, I think conservative Muslims find it insensitive. That is all.

You think that it's a bit insensitive if there are groups that are actually encouraging people to leave the religion?

Yes, correct.

These are Muslim groups?

No, whatever. Muslim or non-Muslim who say, 'You are free to do this. Go ahead, go ahead.' I think in general, Muslims in the country will find it insensitive.

And is that happening right now?

I don't know. I'm sure if you test the waters, you might see a reaction. But, I think, it is better not to play with this kind of thing.

You were talking about the public realm and the private realm. This comes to the question of morality. You know, there are a lot of views on this. Some say you need to legislate morality while some say this should be left to the individual as long you don't do it publicly. What do you think of morality laws?

I think we have to understand that human beings are basically, not all human beings are exactly strong in their integrity as you or me or Jacqueline (chuckles). You might say there are no morality laws in the UK or in the US. (But), they do exist.

For example, in some states in America, even oral sex is against the law. Sodomy is against the law, as I read it a few years ago. If you go to New York today, in certain places, you cannot dress in any way you like. There are dress codes. And there are certain hours when pubs are open. And all these are morality laws.

The only thing is that for Muslims, it (morality) comes from the religion but in the West, it doesn't come from the religion. But that is not completely true (either). I think laws in the West, although the hold of religion is less now, I think many of the laws, including morality laws, most likely came from Christian teachings.

But, I can't remember the name of this professor, who said something like, 'I think the law has no business to regulate morality. For as long as you do not cross that line, for as long as it doesn't go beyond the limits of tolerance, for as long as it's not disgusting in public. I think whatever happens should be ok. We leave it to personal decisions whether to do it or not.'

The only problem is that, for example, this issue of having sex with minors. Even in England, it is still a crime to have sex with a girl who is 15, although she may be very mature physically, has had previous sexual encounters, but it is still a crime. It is still a crime. There is such a thing as the age of consent. Why?

What I mean is that this is, of course, disgusting. It goes beyond the limits of tolerance.

To you. But to many people, it's not.

But I think it is to a minority.

I don't think so.

For the majority to have sex, maybe 15 is quite alright, let's say a five-year-old girl.

Of course, it is (disgusting). Even at the age of 16, for example, a very mature woman and she understands, she knows what she is doing, it is still wrong. Although times have changed, this is not in the 60s, but still it is the law.

What more things like incest, even paedophilia, that's even more.

But then again, if you say that we leave it to individual control, it doesn't happen that way.

No, no, but what I meant was, these are extreme things.

It's not extreme (chuckles).

Ok, from your point of view. But, let's say this incident about this boy and this girl, sort of necking in a public park.

Again, again, it depends on the society as well. In Malaysia, in general, people still are rather conservative. I think this set of municipal laws, I think, every municipal authority has the right to make laws with regards to this. This is not the Penal Code. This is not a crime. These are just moral laws.

I think each municipal council has the right to make laws but it must make it in cognisance with what people feel, what is the general feeling of the people because in a conservative society, it has to follow the mores of that society.

In a more liberal society, then it follows (that). So, to say that morality laws should be abolished, I think that ...

No, no, no. I didn't say that.

I know you didn't. To say that it's unnecessary is, it should be left to the individual ...

For minor things, you know.

Yes, for minor things as well.

Like, for example, Justice Devlin, he said, it shouldn't go beyond the limits of tolerance.

Ya, I agree, too.

But again, beyond the limit of tolerance depends on time and place.

Depends on where you are.

For instance, if a Malay Muslim wants to opt out of the religion, you said earlier, maybe now is not right because society is such but maybe 20 years or 50 years into the future, this is possible.

That's right.

So, I was saying something like this as far as morality laws are concerned.

I tell you one incident where Janet Jackson suddenly exposed her breast (during a televised performance). But people made an uproar. Why?

America is a modern society, this kind of thing should not be (such a big deal). I think, there is still such a thing as morality laws. Anywhere in the world.

Because society needs to function, and it functions on the existence of laws. And how that law is being drafted, it depends on the level of maturity and the mores of society. It's going to vary according to time and place.

But also, enforcing this, I think, is very difficult.

Ya, of course. Of course.

But I think there should be space for humans to also have their own privacy, you know.

Of course.

And for them to make their own decisions. I mean, we shouldn't regulate everything.

Of course.

If you regulate everything, then there is no space. Then you're forcing people to do it.

But I think in the private space, for example, in the home, there should be no intrusion at all. Completely.

But in public, I think it is up to the society as well to have what kind of mores they want according to the sensitivities at that time. It might change with time. It may become more strict or more liberal but I think society has the right, the majority has the right. What is the mainstream preference should be (the benchmark).

But also to decide the limits of tolerance is also difficult. Again, time and place.

Yes, that's right. And these kinds of things need a lot of feedback from a lot of people.

And also the enforcers themselves, they prefer to watch it to their satisfaction (laughs), then they go in, you know.

That's wrong. That's also a problem. Some enforcers are heavy-handed, go overboard, and this complicates the issue.

And also like the case of what happened at the disco Zouk (in Kuala Lumpur where Muslim patrons were rounded up publicly and then detained). Here, I think we have this principle of, if they are doing something which is mungkar (disobedient of God's laws), we should of course, do our duty to sort of hinder them from doing those things. But, I think, there is also the other principle about the need that whenever you do things like that, you must make sure that the person involved is not shamed. Because public shame is really abhorred by religion.

Ya, it should not be tolerated. I agree.

I think here in the case of the Zouk incident, I think it was the over-zealousness of the enforcement officers.

Ya, very heavy-handed approach. The law is there. Do it but don't go overboard.

What do you think about the protest in Penang over the Article 11 forum?

We wrote a letter. We disagreed with it (the protest) because we don't think it's appropriate. The issues (at the Article 11 forum), to me, are valid but then again the way to do it is not correctlah, those kind of things.

One thing is it's (the protest) inappropriate and number two, it backfires on the cause that they want to bring to the attention of the public.

They (the protesters) shouldn't have done it that way.

No, no, of course not.

Subsequently, they have released a statement that promises that there will be more trouble if Article 11 continues on its road show.

Ah. Again, we disagree. People must act within the law.

And have dialogue.

And have dialogue.

So, the forum should be allowed to continue?

I think everyone has the right to that kind of thing but as we wrote there (in our press statement), you must think also of the sensitivities and also the peace of the wider society.

I think in theory, it is something that can go both ways. It is a right but whether you should exercise that right or not is something else.

To me, the issues raised (by Article 11) are sensitive.

So, because they are 'sensitive', they shouldn't be talked about in a public forum?

It can (be talked about) but I think it must be done in a way, first of all, the intention must be correct to arrive at a decision which can be accepted by all parties.

But, I think a lot of people see that as provocative, bringing up those issues and from what I heard, I think the way the forum was conducted may not be, may have upset some of the protesters. So, those things must be looked into.

News from the Sun

Added Bonus:

DrM: US is a bankrupt country, reject the greenback



Husna Yusop and R. Manirajan

KUALA LUMPUR: Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said countries that depended on trade with the United States and the US dollar had contributed to it becoming a superpower and using its money to build war machines.

He described the US as a "bankrupt country" because of its double trade and budget deficits.

However, he said, due to the dependence of many countries on trade with the US and its currency, "we created a demand for their currency".

"If we reject the US dollar ... they (US) will have no money to invent new weapons," Mahathir said during a question and answer session in the Perdana Global Peace Forum Special Session in the Putra World Trade Centre today (June22, 2006).

However, Mahathir, who is the forum chairman, acknowledged that countries like Malaysia, Japan, Singapore, China and many others depended a lot on the US - the world's largest economy.

"It will hurt us if the US is defeated or its economy faces problems. There is a price for everything, nothing comes free.

"But I would rather pay that price ... than be seeing people get killed and knowing the world would be a much better place," Mahathir said. The theme of the forum was "The Middle East Agenda: Oil, Dollar Hegemony and Islam."

Earlier in his speech, Mahathir said in order to succeed in criminalising war, one must call a spade a spade and win the war against misinformation.

Wasted words...

Sorry for the wait... Currently busy with my internship... Next week will be the last week for my internship with Permodalan Nasional Berhad... And I'm currently struggling to finish up the report on my internship there...

You know, I've never thik highly of myself... I always feel inferior and undeserving... Yet today, I'm reminded once again that we can't see our own reflection without a mirror... And that other people are the best mirror that reflects our image and our true self...

As you guys know, I belong to the IIUM MASUM Archery Team... And last week (or was it 2 weeks ago?), we had a meeting with our manager cum coordinator... I happent to be absent from the meeting because of my internship... Today, on my way to the office, I bumped into one of my fellow archer whom we fondly called "Abang Long" (because he is literally the eldest within our team)... He told me what the Captain (refer to previous post) and our manager talked about me during the meeting:

Faiz, the Captain:
I was moved when I saw the hand-made quiver he brought... Never in my archery career have I ever saw anyone who made their own quivers... That's why I asked my friend to lend him his quiver... Honestly, if the suitable arrows were not ready yet by the time we're ging to Labuan, I'm willing to lend him my arrow...

When he's good, he's really good... But when he's out of it, he's worse than an amateur... That's why on my opinion, while he still got the "feeling", we should push him so that he won't lose it...

Kak Ana, the Manager:
It's a good thing we have him in our team... Else the team will not be as happening as it is now, and I wouldn't have any idea whether you guys are really okay or if there's any problem at all... The officers thought that all the equipments were okay, but when I heard him complaining, then I know that it's not okay at all...

Gosh... I'm speechless... Those words were wasted on me... I'm just doing the most logical and rational thing any rational being would do (do whatever it takes for your passion, make things that you can't afford to buy, be honest if there's any problem at all)... But I'm truly grateful... Thank you Allah, for placing me in company of people who would give their utmost to help me out... Thank you guys, for simply being there and bringing the best out of me... Ihab (my number 1 important person), Madi (the sword and shield that always look out for me), Ayob (the best person I could ever think of to have an intellectual discussion), Naim (my second mum), Wana (my third mum), Anna (my business and marketing mentor and friend from Australia), Kak Aisah (the best coach I've ever came across), Faiz (no other captain can ever match his calibre), etc... I don't know if I can ever pay you guys back for all that you guys had done for me...

Again, thank you... And may Allah bless you guys from the day your lives begin, until the last day this world exists... Amin...

More Pictures!!...

Okay... Some more pictures... Malas lak nak menaip...



A picture before we embark on our MASUM adventure...





Warming-up before training at MSN Sports Complex Keramat...





Introducing our Captain:
Mohd Faiz Abu Samah
22
Psychology





Our Assistant Coach, Kak Aisah... She's currently a state player... And country player as well, I think...










Fooling around during the Masum Launching Night...





IIUM humble archers, and their troublesome assistant manager...





Our proud bows... Mine's the one with YAMAHA written on it...





Group photo together with our Coach, Encik Ismail, and his assistant, Kak Aisah...





Warming up before the last battle...





Discussing battle plans...





Aftermath picture... FYI, yours truly got a high fever right after the match...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's something I snatched from The Sun Online... It's an interview with one of our venerable filmmaker that we all should be proud of, Yasmin Ahmad...
____________________________________________

All about feelings



Bissme S.

Yasmin Ahmad, who shot to prominence with her touching Petronas commercials, has been very much in the news lately as her latest films, Sepet and Gubra, have drawn a great deal of controversy. It began when a producer was unhappy that Sepet was adjudged the Best Film at the Malaysian Film Festival 2005 over the RM20 million production, Puteri Gunung Ledang. Then a Malay daily ran a series of articles that discredited Sepet. A forum on TV saw two of the panellists criticising Yasmin and calling her films pencemar budaya (culture polluters). Hurt, the director is not submitting Gubra for this year's Malaysian Film Festival. But she is not discouraged and will continue to make films - works with feeling. The talented Yasmin shares with BISSME S. how she wishes people would just see the love and compassion in her films.

theSun: What is the message you try to impart in your films?

A film doesn't have to have a message. How I decide whether I like a film or not, is whether the film has feelings.
Feelings don't just mean tears and great melodramas - which my films are filled with. Feelings are also about laughter, compassion, joy, sadness, disappointment, fear and relief.

So you put more emphasis on feelings than messages?

Yes. Nothing intellectual, nothing rational. Just feelings. In my movies, I want people to feel love and compassion. I want people to choose them to the opposite - no love and no compassion.

What is the biggest limitation you face as a filmmaker in Malaysia?

My own limitation. I often feel I am not good enough.

Why do you think you are not good enough?

When I watch old films by Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Billy Wilder, Satyajit Ray, and early films of Stanley Kubrick, I realise their films are so much better and they were made so long ago. They made me feel a kind of nothing. My biggest limitation in this country and anywhere else is myself. I feel I have a long way to go.

What do you think of the censorship board?

It has begun to improve greatly. The passing of Lelaki Komunis Terakhir (LKT) and Gubra led me to think the censorship board is now headed by someone much more level-headed and much more understanding of films.

But LKT was banned.

It wasn't the censorship (board) that clamped down on LKT. It was the home ministry. In one clean sweep, some ministry has declared Lembaga Penapis Filem (LPF) is nothing. Why have LPF when you are not going to respect its decision?
You appointed the people and you pay their salary and you completely disregard their decision. As a filmmaker I feel this ban is the biggest joke in the film industry.

Have you watched LKT and what do you think of it?

LKT is a lovely film that doesn't glorify Chin Peng in any way. It is a film where in the end, it shows that ideology has nothing to do with it and people are the product of their environment.
Chin Peng was born in a very violent environment - with a lot of fighting between freedom fighters and British colonialists and then the Japanese.
He came out from this violent environment and became violent himself. The film doesn't forgive him for what he did. In the end, the communists collaborated with the British to oust the Japanese.
People they are against, they collaborated with. It is not about ideology at all. It is about power and it is about economics more than anything else. It puts things in perspective.

What do you think of all the negative comments that have been said of Lelaki Komunis Terakhir?

There is a reason why Special Branch didn't have a problem with the film. There is a reason why LPF didn't have a problem with the film. I hope it will be shown. It puts things in perspective. It is funny and it has musical breaks which are hilarious.

Are you afraid that your next film will suffer the same fate as LKT?

I am only afraid of God. Even then, it is not enough. I should fear God even more. My parents had taught me only to fear God. Like Chin Peng, I am a product of my environment. Though I fear for my next film, I just continue making films. The fate of my film is really in God's hands.

Recently there was a forum on TV which hinted your movies Sepet and Gubra mencemarkan budaya (polluted the culture). What is your comment on the show?

I didn't see the programme when it was on air. But somebody showed me a recording. I can understand why so many people are outraged by it. It is not so much the comments on my films. It is the racist comments that they passed which I am very surprised that nobody has rapped their knuckles for it.
I am surprised nobody came down on a forum which everybody watched and which was bluntly racist and clearly unsettling for society. I was shocked by the racial slur. I was sure the authorities were coming down on them but they didn't.

Do you think your films mencemarkan budaya?

If they can define what budaya means, I might state an opinion. Do they mean Budaya Melayu?

I think they did mean Budaya Melayu.

The forum was conducted by people who were dressed like Western people. I wear Melayu bajus more often than they do. I don't understand what this Budaya Melayu really means. I have heard some people say Budaya Melayu is budaya lemah lembut (gentle).
But I find the Japanese are more lemah lembut than the Melayu. We don't hold the candle for lemah lembut. In fact, the forum itself proved, given the things people said, the champions of Budaya Melayu are not so lemah lembut, so what budaya are they championing?

Has the forum discouraged you from making films?

I am making another film. Perhaps it has not discouraged me.

Some say in your films, you like to put down the Malay race?

Actually, in my films I put down and I put up everybody. If you think about it, in Sepet the Chinese family is quite loveless and the Malay family is full of love. If I were Chinese I could say Yasmin was putting down the Chinese.
We see what we want to see. If you draw four dots on a piece of paper, some people can draw a square, some people will draw a cross.
I really don't think I was putting down the Malays. I am Malay, why should I put down my people? There are a lot of Malays who have said in my website as well as in Kakiseni that it is ridiculous to describe my films as pencemar budaya. I think there are only a few Malays who have a problem with it. I am not like them, therefore I don't really understand them. Maybe, I am stupid, that is (the) reason I don't see why they feel that way.

Tell me more about your new movie.

It is called Mukhsin. It tries to examine one very common human condition - how (the relationship of) two very good friends of the opposite sex goes awry when one of them starts having romantic feelings for the other.
It always fascinates me why something as beautiful as friendship can be destroyed by something as beautiful as love. You would think two beautiful things put together and you will get even more beautiful things. But sometimes, you don't.

Have you experienced such feelings?

Of course. I think everybody has been through this. You are good friends with somebody and suddenly you develop romantic feelings for them. Or they develop romantic feelings for you and things go horribly wrong.
With my husband though, it worked very well. We started as friends and we fell in love.

Give theSun a sneak preview - what can we expect from your (new) movie?

There is a scene in the film where somebody mentions the phrase Pencemar Budaya (Both of us laugh loudly.)

One film personality said Yasmin should be stopped from making films. Why do you think there is so much hostility against you? Are you afraid of your harsh critics?

I really don't understand about this hostility. My films are not big box-offices and they didn't steal business from other people's films. For some reason, some people feel threatened by my films. I just think they are being silly. Like I said earlier, I am not afraid of anyone, except Allah. I remembered being told If everybody joins hands to do good for you they cannot do any more good than Allah will allow them to. If everybody joins hands to do bad to you, they cannot do any more bad than Allah will allow them to.

It is said Gubra will not participate in this year's Malaysian Film Festival. Is that true?

Yes. That is true. They have made it so painful for me for having won last year. Despite some accusations against me, I don't make films for awards. Someone once said: All an artist needs to know about awards is that Mozart never won one.
But when I meet with such hostility, many people from the mainstream (movie industry) called me to (say) go ahead and carry on your work.

How long will you stay away from the local award ceremony?

For this time. Next year, God knows.

Some people say you can't take criticism and that is why you pulled out from the Malaysian Film Festival. Your comment?

It is not the criticism that hurts. It is the weight in which the criticism was dished out. It is so constant, unending, relentless and unclamped by the authorities. It is clear victimisation. I am not going to sit here and play the game. It is not my game. As my make-up artist on the set of Gubra said, they are beating the drums, let them dance. I do not want to dance. I just want to make films.

Do you think you can handle criticism?

I don't mind people saying my film Sepet was not good enough. But who said it, annoys me. It is not criticism but where it comes from (that) annoys me. By God's blessing, the film went (on) to win the Best Asian Award at the Tokyo Film Festival and the chairman of the jury was Zhang Yimou.
It matters to me (that) he likes it. Nobody can handle criticism. It is bound to affect you. But I am still making films. Whenever I get extreme criticism, I go to Rotten Tomatoes websites. Even brilliant films like All About My Mother and Talk To Her get good and bad reviews. What is Sepet.

Where do you get inspiration?

From real life. From people. Only people interest me. How people handle love and hate and how people choose between the two.

What is the best compliment and worst criticism you have received about your films?

The best compliment is when people say my movies touched them and when they say they see people of different races in the cinema watching my movies. The worst, of course, have been so many and the worst insult to me is that my movies are pencemar budaya.

Some people say you love to push boundaries. For example, in Gubra you have a scene where a bilal touches a dog.

I don't think a bilal touching a dog was pushing the boundaries. I think casting stones at dogs for no apparent reason is pushing boundaries. So my film was in protest of people who pushed the boundaries. I don't do films just to push the boundaries, I just want to tell stories.

What is the greatest misconception people have of Yasmin Ahmad?

That I pushed boundaries. (laughs) ... That I am a rebel. But I am not.

One newspaper has been writing a series of unflattering articles about you. Are you sceptical about the media and journalists now?

Journalism is like other professions. There are good and bad ones (journalists). You would think every doctor is a good person because they are supposed to save lives. But there are doctors who prescribe medicine that is not needed. They tend to gain by this.

Who are the filmmakers you admire and why?

Charlie Chaplin. Because he managed to mix great humour with great human drama. Satyajit Ray for humanity in his films and how he achieved this with small budgets. Pedro Almodovar. Because he always features people who are outcasts and unforgivable and found redeeming qualities in them. I am impressed how forgiving he is of those whom society has not forgiven. Takishi Kitano. Because of the ease he hides the emotions and violence with minimum cuts and minimum scripting.

Any local directors you admire?

Ho Yuhang. Because he portrays the section of Chinese society that does not drive Mercedes-Benz or have a lot of money. He focuses on the poorer Chinese and believe me, they exist! He focuses on them in a very controlled and dispassionate way. He shows me a world I have not seen before.
Osman Ali, because he is not afraid to be sentimental. In the commercial world I admire Kamal Mustapha. He, of course, taught me practically everything I know about films. Contrary to popular belief, he directed most of the Petronas commercials and not me. I just wrote most of the scripts and he encouraged me to direct some of them. I admire him greatly.

Why do you think your movies are so controversial and make people uncomfortable?

I really don't know.

You must must have some idea.

(After thinking for a while) In many local films, it is very clear-cut, bad people (are) always bad and the good people always good.
Which is to me anyway, completely unfaithful to real life. In real life, good people have (some) bad in them and bad people have some good in them.
My film Sepet features someone like Orked who reads the Quran and prays and wears baju kurung. She holds the hand of a Chinese boy. Some people wonder how she can read the Quran and pray, and yet fall in love with a Chinese boy.
People don't understand I didn't make Orked out to be an angel. People want my films to feature good people as always good and bad people as always bad.
The person who said in the forum she (Orked) can't be a good Muslim if she goes out with a Chinese boy and holds his hands, I find it very silly.
Gubra shows prostitutes are not all villains. She may be bad for selling her body, but she is a good mother and takes care of her son. The grey area makes people uncomfortable.
We have been showing films and dramas where people are exemplary citizens. Society has not improved. Handbag-snatching is at an all-time high, child rape is at an all-time high and drug addiction has not abated.
Perhaps, featuring people as exemplary citizens has not worked. Perhaps understanding their contradiction might work better.

Some say you only explore human emotions in your movies and you are not a versatile director. What do you say to that?

To be told I have a particular trend in my films is not an insult to me. All the directors I admired have consistent themes in their movies.
People have asked me, why don't I make a war or sci-fi film and prove that I am a versatile filmmaker. I never went into films to be a versatile director. I went into it to examine emotions. If you want versatility, go for somebody else.

Do you get offended when people say you can never get away from Petronas commercials and that your films are long extensions of these commercials?

Not all. Petronas commercials are the most popular commercials in the history of the advertising industry in Malaysia. I would rather my films are long Petronas ads than long detergent ads.

Every director has a dream project. What is yours?

I want to make a film on Dr M. But I am not wise and knowledgeable enough to make this film. It has to be in the hands of Kamal Mustapha.

What is the best moment in your life?

When Sepet won the top award at the 27th Creteil International Women Director Festival in France last year. My parents came on stage with me to get the award. They were so happy. Every time I make my parents happy, I feel God's pleasure.

How would you like to be remembered?

It is not so important to me to be remembered. Ego and arrogance are things that God doesn't approve of. I like people to remember the love and compassion that is so prevalent in my films. Some people choose not to see it. They see other things.

Some directors love it when their movies are controversial. What about you?

It surprises me that my movies are controversial. It surprises me that people are shocked by a Malay girl in a baju kurung going to a party. Going to a party is the not worst thing that a Malay girl in baju kurung has done. My films are so tame compared to real life.
It surprises me when I show a scene of an elderly couple very much in love; people call it obscene.
But, almost on a weekly basis, they watch Malay dramas where husbands betray their wives, marry more than one, shout at their wives and beat them. And this is not shocking?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This one is an older interview, featuring the International Managing Director of Al-Jazeera...
___________________________________

A balancing point of view



Cindy Tham

Qatar-based Al Jazeera International promises to revolutionise television news in the English-speaking world, offering a balancing perspective on news and issues. The 24-hour news and current affairs channel also promises to live up to the tradition set by its Arabic sister channel Al Jazeera, which has gained its fair share of fame as well as notoriety for refusing to 'sanitise' the gory images of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and for broadcasting video footage allegedly from Osama bin Laden. Al Jazeera International's managing director Nigel Parsons recently looked in on the Kuala Lumpur centre, one of the four high-definition broadcast centres besides Doha, London and Washington DC. The initial plan to begin broadcasting last month, aiming to reach 40 million homes worldwide from day one, has run into some delay. Parsons talks to CINDY THAM about the challenges at hand as the channel gears up to go on air.

theSun: When I last interviewed you, in November last year, Al Jazeera International was supposed to begin broadcasting in April, which was last month. I understand there has been some delay. What's holding it back?

It's a mixture of the building and technological installation. We originally hoped to go on air in late spring. We'd never put an exact date but then, that was always dependent on the building work and the technological installation. I think it is the single most complicated project ever attempted in television in the world.

You mean the high-definition broadcast centres?

It was high-definition, with four centres and all linked by fibre. So it's new software. First, the building work was late. Not a big surprise. If you have ever had a new kitchen fixed, you'd know something's always late. And then, we're waiting for the technological hand-over. So, yeah, there's been some delay. We actually don't think it's particularly important. I think people will judge us by what we produce, and not when we produce it. It's not a huge delay.

And I think to have achieved what we have achieved in a year and a half - to build these four centres and to get them ready for launch, it's phenomenal, it's a huge undertaking - I'm not overly disappointed or overly concerned. I don't think it's a huge issue.

Is the delay in all the four hubs or in specific centres?

The buildings have been a little bit late in all four places. I'm here because the staff are just moving into the new building. Obviously, we have a lot more staff. When I last saw you, we had maybe 10 people and now we've got 60 or 70 and by the time we launch, we'll be nearly 100 here, which is also slightly bigger than we first expected.

It's a few more programming staff, more on the technical and operations side. But we are almost staffed upÉ There's a lot of training under way. Lots of people have been going from here to Doha. We have about 10 people from the office at the moment in Doha doing training on news browse, desktop editing systems, newsroom systems. We're making a lot of paper pilots, we're doing a lot of pre-filming, making documentaries.

Just over the weekend, Al Jazeera International announced the appointment of two weekend presenters at the Kuala Lumpur centre, Divya Gopalan and Hamish MacDonald. They join a team of very seasoned journalists like Sir David Frost, Veronica Pedrosa, Riz Khan. These are all very familiar faces in international news networks. Now, you've said many times before that Al Jazeera International is going to be very different from what we have so far, the CNN, BBC, Sky News. Yet you are relying on a lot of these familiar faces who were trained in or are very accustomed to the conventional TV news that we have been used to. So, how is Al Jazeera International going to be different?

Well, they're joining us for a reason. And, actually, the two people you mentioned as weekend presenters are not internationally known figures. Yes, Veronica is, Teymoor (Nabili) is, but they've joined us for a reason. They've said that they were frustrated previously and the kind of journalism we offer is what they want to do. Veronica, in particular, is very keen on an Asian agenda and an Asian perspective, which is what we offer, which is why we built these four broadcast centres.

I think we are a mix of experiences, and a big part of our philosophy once we get on air is actually to be training local people in the regions where we are, which should offer lots of opportunities for the people here. Just for the launch, we can't go with all inexperienced people. It's too complicated. And the pool of talent just in Malaysia, for example, of people whose written and spoken English and whose television experience is good enough to go on the international stage, it's a big step up. Once we're on air, we will have training programmes, we will be bringing people up to speed.

So we've gone for that mixture. And in the office here, we have employees from China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and Korea. So we have a big spread.

And the thing about David Frost is, he's not a member of (the) staff. He's been contracted to make a certain number of programmes over a certain period. It's a once-a-week show. So, yes, he's a big name but that's one show a week. There are lots more besides.

Well, you've said before that Al Jazeera International will be different from the BBC, CNN, otherwise there will be no point in setting it up. So does this mean that with a different outfit, the same journalists could actually present news in a different way?

Well, I would argue strongly that we're not the same journalistsÉ We are based in the Middle East looking out. The Middle East is the world's hot spot. We work very closely with the Arabic channel. We share video, we share planning, we share offices across the world, and we'll have access to all of each other's content...

The example I'll give you this morning - if you look at all the main organisations now - take the Iran nuclear story. Actually no one in the Middle East wants anyone to have any nuclear weapon, at all, ideally. However, when you see that story reported at the moment, it is always, you know, "Iran nuclear threat". That is the angle of the story. If you are sitting in Teheran, in Iran, they're thinking, "Oh, how come Israel can have it, how come India can have it, and we can't?" There's no balance to that story. Pakistan isn't allowed it, India is. Israel is allowed it, Iran isn't.

And actually, if you're sitting in Iran, you know, they are surrounded by potential enemies. They've been invaded more than once over the last 100 years. I don't think they've actually ever invaded anybody else. So, from their perspective, there's a lot of double standards at play. I think we would offer that alternative view. We would turn that around.

And similarly, when we are here in Kuala Lumpur, we are offering viewers an Asian perspective on world events. So I don't think it's fair to say that we are entirely staffed up by people from those organisations. We have across the Middle East, by and large, Arabic staff. You're also forgetting that half the channel is programming and programming is, we are a commissioning house.

We are commissioning local producers everywhere in the world. When we make documentaries here, we are making documentaries with local Asian production houses. Our programme director was here a week ago meeting local production houses. He was very impressed with the standards he came across. So, when you've got a programme like Everywoman or People in Power, the Kuala Lumpur office will be contributing the Asian perspective on any given issue.

That's a very interesting (approach). I mean, if there's one theme and you take one subject, you get contributions from all the different offices, you get to understand that there are four different perspectives or more on these stories. We run a unique commissioning website so that any producer anywhere in the world can pitch an idea to us and if we like it, we'll commission it off the website. So, you know, I strongly disagree with you about just copying the others.

I guess it's because, you know, when you look at the line-up of anchors you have appointed, the first impression one would get is these are people who used to be at the BBC or CNN...

...or Abu Dhabi TV, or Dubai TV, or ...

Right, fair enough.

We have a huge mix but the thing is that we are taking on the heritage of Al Jazeera. We are a sister channel of an existing channel. We have the same code of ethics. We share the same editorial guidelines. We are not a completely different beast. We have a wider world audience that we are aiming at, with a different language, but we are sister channels and we share the same ethos. That's why we will be the authority on the Middle East, helping you understand what's going on there because that's where we are. Even though I'm living there, yes I'm not an Arab, however I'm working with my Arab counterpart. He helps me understand some of what's going on under the surface. And that will be respected.

Are there certain expectations that Al Jazeera the Arabic channel has of Al Jazeera International, because you are a spin-off of that channel? Are there certain standards that are expected of Al Jazeera International and also concerns that because it is staffed by a team of - for lack of a better term - Western journalists and managers, it may be quite different from Al Jazeera?

I think they are legitimate concerns and we are addressing them, those who are already now working on a daily basis with the Arabic channel. There are various team-building, relationship-building initiatives under way... Of course, we are acutely aware that we could damage the brand, if you like. And that's what people are concerned about, I think, on the Arabic side; some, not all. Concerns have been expressed but I can assure you, and we have assured these people who have expressed the concerns, that we are not there to dilute the brand. We are there to take their spirit of journalism to a wider world audience.

There were concerns also that certain words that are loaded with moral or political meaning like jihad have been used by the Arabic channel. I understand that, well you have been reported to have said, that there's a stylebook that Al Jazeera International wants to set up...

Yeah, we are working together, both channels. We will share. There are some words that when you translate from Arabic to English, they have a completely different meaning or they carry a moral judgment. I mean, it's very difficult to use the word "suicide bomber" in Arabic.

There isn't an equivalent or a direct translation?

If you translate it directly, it carries a moral judgment, and as a news organisation, that's not our job... One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Am I going to call him a "terrorist" or am I going to call him a "freedom fighter"? I'm going to find something that does not judge him.

So this is a stylebook that is going to shared by Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera International?

Well, we're working together because if we're going to be in two different languages, we need to understand precisely those kinds of issues. In English, a "suicide bomber" is a suicide bomber. In Arabic, it carries a different meaning altogether. We need to understand that ... maybe we won't use that word in English. We haven't made that call yet. We wouldn't use the word "martyr" either... What do you call the people in Iraq? Do you call them "resistance fighters", do you call them "armed groups", do you call them "insurgents" ... ?

Other than diction, are there other issues that Al Jazeera International would want to put emphasis on, considering how you have critics watching your every move, every word, every footage?

Yeah, we are under close scrutiny, there's no doubt about it. We are aware of it but we're quite confident our journalists will be free, impartial and accurate. What we're after is to connect with the street, if you like, which is what the Arabic channel has so successfully done. They've managed to address the concerns of ordinary people. They are not just following the agenda that's set by the politicians. They are not afraid to ask difficult questions. They don't go out looking deliberately for controversy but they're not frightened of it either.

But the geographic location (of the news organisation) isn't necessarily what would determine one's understanding of the problem. I'm curious, I mean, you don't have to be in Qatar to see that (what's happening in Israel and Palestine).

You don't, you don't. But, clearly, for that particular story and the Iranian story, the headlines you are getting are the politicians' sound bites, and we're saying there is not enough critical analysis of that. There is another side to all of these stories. You don't have to lose your balance, you don't have to lose your accuracy, but there are other sides to the story. You're right, you don't have to be in the Middle East to see that but why isn't it being reported more often from the other side, the other angle. I don't think we're getting a balanced picture at the moment.

So you think Al Jazeera International will be able to fill that gap or vacuum?

Absolutely! That's what we'll do. That's exactly the gap we're going into and we think it's a very good environment for us. We do think this vacuum has been created and it was particularly apparent during the invasion of Iraq. I don't think the major organisations have really recovered from that.

Today is World Press Freedom Day (May 3). You've been in this profession and industry for, oh, more than 30 years... From where you're coming from, how do you think the state of press freedom and the standard of journalism have evolved, or have been affected by international events or influenced by development?

I actually think, from a broadcast perspective, we're not talking about the print media here, I think we're in a fairly difficult time. I think the main broadcasters in the United States have been cowed by this administration. It's almost like the Russian media in the 70s. They're frightened of the administration. The Russian media is still the Russian media in the 70s. They came forward a little bit in the 80s and 90s and now they've gone right back to state control.

That is why it is a good environment for us. I think this word "globalisation" has tended to impact not just trade but also the media. There's this tendency to think we should all have the same standards, you know, one size fits all, the smaller world, et cetera, et cetera. Personally I disagree with that very strongly. I think we should be celebrating our differences and respecting our differences.

And, if you like, Al Jazeera would like to make the world a bigger place again, not a smaller place. We would go against that trend and I think journalists have kind of fallen into that trap, broadcasters in particular, all following each other...

I think it's a very dangerous time for journalists. The casualty rate is just phenomenal. That's an absolute tragedy. People taking huge risks. If you look at the number that has been killed in Iraq, it's just unbelievable. When I was in the field, particularly in conflict zones, journalists did die or get wounded but it tended to be by accident. These days, journalists are targets.

The target groups - decision-makers, professionals, people aged 20 to 35 - these have, according to you (in a past interview) shown particular interest in a channel like Al Jazeera International. What are the concerns that they have and what is it that Al Jazeera International will be able to give them?

I'd probably go back to my earlier answer that there's this disconnect, if you like, that's happening between the political leaders and the people on the street. It's reflected across the world and voting figures really, particularly in the Western world. I think people will watch us because we will be revolutionising viewer choice and offering up a different menu. There's a strong feeling at the moment that they're not getting the whole story. I think we'll have a big curiosity turn-on because of that and hopefully they will stay with us when they see the product.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And this is what really sparks my courage to speak up...
________________________________________

Dialogue of civilisations

INTERNATIONALLY known intellectual and social activist Dr Chandra Muzaffar, who celebrated his 59th birthday recently, believes that people, especially the more erudite among the middle class, should speak up on issues currently confronting the nation. They should not leave completely to the politicians the course this nation should take. Kedah-born Chandra is still as committed to the cause of social justice as he was when as a young academician three decades ago he founded Aliran. He remained its guiding light until 1992 when left to form JUST, the International Movement for a Just World. He left the academic world when his contract as professor-cum-director at the Centre for Civilizational Dialogue, University of Malaya, was not renewed. There was a politically vocal middle class once but now it is by and large tame and timid, the former academician told ZAINON AHMAD and MARIA J. DASS.

theSun: You have been a social activist for a long time, first in Aliran for one and a half decades and since 1992 as Just president. You were an academician as well but now you are a full-time social activist. Why?

I could have taken a different path. I could have been an academic, and not involved in social issues in social issues. A lot of academics are not involved in social issues, but I don't think I would have been happy. As an academic if you have had the good fortune of acquiring a certain level of education, if you have accumulated a certain quantum of knowledge, I think you should ensure that that knowledge is used to serve society, especially if you are in the social sciences where you are trained to think about society's challenges - if you don't use that training for a larger purpose then I don't think you have fulfilled your role.

The other reason why I've always had the urge to commit myself is because of certain instances in my own past. It may have something to do with the fact that my own father was a very public-spirited person. He established the first English school in Bidong, Kedah, set up a home for the destitute and at the same time he ran the local council there. And that made an impact on me.

Now the other elements from my own background was the fact that I was stricken with polio at the age of four and it made me very sensitive to human suffering wanting to do what one could to eliminate human suffering.

Politicians did not like you very much when you were in Aliran. You openly criticised government policies. Former PM Tun Mahathir Mohamad was one of those who took exception to your criticism of him that during the 1986 general elections he said if you wanted to criticise the government then you must enter politics. But you were not intimidated and continued to speak up. Do you think that was one reason why you were arrested in Operation Lallang?

I see Operasi Lallang introspectively as a move by the government - the Mahathir leadership - to ensure that the expanding middle class would not become too independent in its thinking. Of the 180 people who were arrested under Operasi Lallang, quite a lot of them were from professional and academic backgrounds. And I would interpret Operasi Lallang, apart from its other aims, it may have been prompted by the internal politics in Umno, the Umno election of 1987 where there was team A and team B and things that were very much in the public arena then like the Chinese schools issue and so on. But you also have an increasingly vocal middle class, they are the ones who attend Aliran functions and the functions of other NGOs and the middle class was just beginning to assert their independence, think for themselves - the power to be part of politics. This is what I call citizens politics. It is different from party politics - you don't have to be a member of a political party to stand for elections. As citizens they have a right to be concerned with what's happening to the country and this is what we were doing.

So citizens politics was beginning to grow and develop and people were becoming more and more concerned about issues and speaking up, and at that moment in time Operasi Lallang was a way of stopping the growth of an independent, autonomous, thinking society.

But this autonomous middle class - does it exist now?

A: I don't think so. I think our middle class intelligensia here is still weak. In terms of numbers, we have a big middle class but a lot of people don't speak up. And the sort of activism we see in other countries and even our neighbours with middle class communities which in proportional terms are smaller than our middle class in Malaysia, but we find that they have is much greater activism in some of these societies compared to Malaysia.

Why do you think this is so? Why don't people speak up for instance or indulge in public debate on government policies.

Operasi Lallang is one of the reasons. There are other reasons which I think are more important. We are ethnically divided. It's one of the reasons why we haven't been able to crystalise that sort of middle class which has that sort of commitment to democratic values, egalitarian values and so on. It's partly because we are ethnically divided.

Maybe also because we are fairly properous?

Yes, that too. We are fairly prosperous and when you have a prosperous middle class which at the same time does not have a certain intellectual history behind it, they don't have a certain tradition of dissent, of speaking up, they don't have such values and you have all this prosperity around you ... I suppose you are lulled into complacency and that's what happened to our middle class. Our prosperity has played a role, our ethnic situation has played a role and the absence of a certain history has actually created a situation which confronts us today - a middle class which is by and large tame and timid.

Many people were quite surprised when you entered politics. Would you rather forget those years when you were in it?

I entered party politics - I distinguish party politics from citizens politics - largely because of the situation which confronted the nation at that time. We had an extraordinary situation in 1998. A situation a lot of us felt that the fundamental institutions of governments were under threat. By which I mean institutions such as the judiciary, the police, the media - the way in which all these institutions were harnessed to serve a particular purpose related to the sacking of the deputy prime minister, and there was a response from a segment of the general public who responded to the situation with demonstrations ... people felt that something was wrong. We've been talking all about injustices, accountability, freedom of expression and then you hear people are beginning to speak up. And if you don't respond you would not have lived up their expectation, you would have in a sense betrayed the people, so you have to respond to that situation.

So what happened to myself and a number of others was not unusual. We were just responding to that situation.

I was there for two and a half years - in party politics - and I learnt things about politics which I didn't learn in political science course in the universities (laughs). When you join a party, you learn a few things about politics while you are there in the arena - you learn a lot of things -things that you may not be aware of if you didn't join politics.

And you didn't like that?

No, I didn't like that. We've always known that in politics you are more concerned with power than anything else, but I think you have to get into the ring to see what it really means - this obsession with power. It's actually the major preoccupation of politicians, it's not the ideals which they spout from time to time ... their real obsession is power, and I thinks it is very difficult to hold down certain principals in party politics. You have to compromise all the while, you have to adjust to various situations and you have to be very, very partisan in your outlook...but sometimes by becoming overly partisan you become unjust to the realities, the truth as you see it.

You want to articulate the truth but you can't, because you got a partisan position to take. And you have to adhere to that partisan position, this I think is part of the problem where you have to be very, very partisan to a point where you sacrifice truth.

At the same time you have to compromise on your principals, you can't run away from that. All the while you have to make compromises in party politics.

If you want to survive you have to be like the others. You've have to make power your central goal.you can't be talking about idealistic principals and so on it's power.

But don't you think you need to get power first before you could implement your ideas and goals?

That's true. Unless one gets into party politics, unless you are part of that game where you acquire power, you will not be able to bring about certain changes. I suppose that is sort of a dilemma you would like someone else to grapple with.

If you were asked to write a book on Dr Mahathir maybe ten years from now, how would your evaluation of him be like?

Any evaluation of Dr Mahathir like an evaluation of any leader who has made a very big impact on society should be balanced and not for or against him. You have to take into account his strengths, his weaknesses you have to be balanced to convince people that it is a sort of evaluation which is not motivated by bias, because the reality is that there are good things he has done for the country which one cannot ignore and there are also things which have happened that one could define as negative. So it will be a balanced evaluation if I would have to do an evaluation in ten years' time.

He was big on infrastructure, wasn't he?

Yes. I would certainly acknowledge what he has done for infrastructure development of the country which has been an important contribution to people's well being. The roads, the ports the infrastructure development was remarkable.

He's also helped to bring about certain transformations to society like the expansion and the strengthening of the middle class under his tutelage. At the same time you see the growth of the Malay middle class. If you look at the situation in the 60's and 70's, it's a tremendous achievement and it has helped assimilation in the country. Because if a very big segment of the Malay community had remained poor, I don't think there would have been inter-ethnic peace or harmony in our country. That sort of transformation, I think is very important and Dr Mahathir pushed very hard for it. His foreign policy was also studious and staid in a sense that he was always very conscious of our independence and sovereignty at a time when the global situation had become less hospitable to that sort of attempt to maintain our independence and sovereignty.

Almost 10 - 12 years into his stewardship the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War had come to an end and we had a unipolar world and politics. Most countries have succumbed to unipolar politics, but Malaysia had succeeded in keeping its independence and voicing out its opinions on what is happening in the world - whether on Bosnia, Palestine, Iraq and that has been remarkable.

He has also the man who was partly responsible for the expansion of Asean ---- as an entity that covered the entire region. It was also quite an achievement, because despite certain weaknesses in governments like Myanmar you cannot run away from the fact that a regional entity that encompasses the whole of South East Asia, is an achievement and it has given strength and identity to the region.

What were those things he did you would define as negative?

On the negative side, we should be concerned with the growth of corruption. During his tenure - corruption had become more serious. He may have been concerned of corruption but I don't think there were any sort of concrete measures he took to fight corruption. We should be concerned also with the emasculation of the judiciary and obliterating of the media the and other institutions which are important for any democratic country. Parliament was also very much under the thumb of the executive. We had overwhelming executive dominance during his stewardship, and while we were able to operate society, groups and so on these were under the sufferance of the powers that be. So I think that this was something we are not very happy about.

If you look at the economic side, yes infrastructure development was good but don't forget that the income inequities in this country is also quite serious.

Malaysia has one of the worst income inequities in the Asia Pacific region between people right at the top and those of the bottom.

Of course we have reduced absolute poverty which is good --- official figure is about 5%, maybe more --- but whatever it is, the real challenge is not absolute poverty, it's relative poverty and that's the real challenge. In other words people who can make ends meet and so on but given the situation today, you have what I like to describe as a growing gap between the have-a-lots and the have-a-little. It's not have and have-nots. This gap has grown over the last 10 to 15 years and that's serious and that's something that was not attended to.

What about ethic relations under him?

Because of a certain degree of economic success we had managed to blunt some of the sharper edges in relations between communities, but at the same time we cannot deny that we are still a very divided nation. People still operate very much within their own little ethnic cocoons whether it is politics, economics, education --- you see this everywhere.

You talked about the overwhelming executive power. Do you think there are signs that the present government is gradually dismantling this?

Well there is more openness now, we have more vocal parliament - if you look at the back- benchers they speak up much more, the media too has given some attention to investigative journalism if you look at what TV3 does, and the newspapers also attempt to expose wrong doing. I think bureaucracy too is fast to respond to some of the complaints from the general public. This is what makes the government more accountable and these are the positive changes over the last two and a half years.

Having said that I think the Malaysian public has every right to be disappointed. The pace of change has been slow, elite corruption is still a challenge and though there is a certain degree of freedom where the media is concerned, I don't think they dare to investigate certain cases --- it's something which will not happen.

I supposed there are problems even now and ethnic relations I don't have become any worse but I don't think it has improved either, there are more challenges -- polarisations, people adopting a very communal position and seeing challenges from within their own sectarian ethnic perspective. And justice is seen through the prism of a particular community and interpreted of course by the opinionated.

You are involved in civilisational dialogue than when you were at the Centre for Civilisational Dialouge --- with more passion in fact. Do you think you can make the difference?

One has to continue to dialogue, one has to continue to engage the other. One has to continue to continue to get rid of prejudices, stereotypes which colour and condition relations between civilizations, cultures and so on.

You have to continue to find common ground, you have to continue to articulate shared values. It is important because you have to realize that this is one human family, you can't run away from that. I'm talking of a human family in a global sense. A common humanity, it's a challenge which is going to last for a long, long while.

It's going to take generations to arrive at this point. To instil that this common human identity of ours is far more important than individual, or community, or militant or nationality, but this common human identity is what really counts.

That is what civilisational dialogue is all about --- an attempt to reach that point.

In view of all this talk about clashes of civilizations and what the religious zealots and extremists are doing, don't you think that is tough going?

It is. No way one is going to see it in one's lifetime, and all that what we can do is to make a small, modest contribution towards this process of building bridges.

It's going to be very, very difficult and what is made difficult and this challenge has been there for a while. You cannot have meaningful interaction between cultures, communities, civilisations if there's no respect, if you don't recognise the other as your equal. The whole concept of the other it can be cultural, can be religious, can be linguistics, can be civilisation, but you must be prepared to respect the other you must be prepared to see the other as your equal.

That is not possible in a situation where there is asymmetric power, that is so overwhelming at this point.

Please explain.

If you look at the global situation you will find that there is a small elite not confined to any particular country, that dominates and rules the world. These are the rulers of the world. So how can you have a dialogue in a situation where you have this coterie, this elite right at the helm and the rest of us (the whole of humanity) is at their mercy. You can't really have a dialogue.

It reminds me of what Tolstoy, the Russian philosopher, said: "I sit on a person's back and I want all that is good for him. I'll do everything to help him except get off his back". You can't possibly have a dialogue in that sort of situation --- when you're sitting on someone's back. You have to have a dialogue of equals.

But that doesn't mean that one should not continue to dialogue just because you have an unequal situation. You have to go on talking, persuading and showing what the situation is like. You just have to continue.

Coping with a troubled world

theSun: After the Sept 11 incident, Muslims seem to be under siege. It seems Muslims everywhere are reeling from the onslaught of this war on terror. Why do you think they are not rallying and fighting back? Is it for lack of leadership?

I think there are two questions here, one is Muslims under siege. I think it's true. It's something that's real. We're not talking of a situation where Muslims are perceived to be under siege. It is real in a sense that we are part of this global system that we talked about a while ago - which is very unequal and they see certain things happening that convince them that the whole system is against them.

You look at Palestine for instance. Palestinians had their own land taken over by someone else, they've been expelled from their land, killed and persecuted. They are under siege in that sense.

Look at Iraq - invaded, occupied so they feel under siege. Look at Afghanistan and look at the way Muslim minorities are harmed and harassed in different parts of the world and how they become the target as it were of hegemonic power that dominates the globe. Muslims feel that they are not treated well and they are marginalised.

But why don't they respond?

Now if you say that Muslims are not responding to this challenge that is not altogether true. There is a response, except it is the sort of response that we are not comfortable with.

Al Qaeda is responding, Osama is responding to this challenge. If you look at the birth of Al Qaeda, when did Al Qaeda come into being?

It came into being after the US set up bases in Saudi Arabia, this is when Al Qaeda announced to the world that it was going to fight the United States of America. This was after the US bases in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia - and you know that one of the first strikes was the Dhahran air base.

So the Al Qaeda responded, Osama's response is also through violence, because as far as they are concerned there is no other way.

It was hopeless. So if you want to liberate your land, if you want to push out the invader you just have to fight, you have to resort to violence. But we know violence is not the solution, because violence begets violence. ClichŽ maybe, but its true. It's something that should not be ignored.

Even from a strategic perspective the sort of violence that Al Qaeda is engaged in offers them hope in the short term or the long run. If you look at Sept 11, if it is Al Qaeda which is responsible for Sept 11. They decide to destroy a symbol of American global power, economic power and the symbol of global military power (the Pentagon), they killed almost 3,000 people but what have they accomplished?

They got their short thrill but it is the US which benefitted the most.

Yes. As a result of Sept 11, the US managed to topple the Taliban regime, but even more significant after toppling the Taliban regime they extended their tentacles over the entire Central Asian region - the five Central Asian republics. They've got bases in two of them today and they have agreements with all countries in that region. The US wanted an oil and gas pipe line from a Central Asian republic to a white water port. They couldn't do this when the Taliban was there but now they have succeeded in getting this done.

That's as far as Afghanistan is concerned. They accomplished this after Sept 11 and in other words expanded their military growth.

If you look at Iraq, again using the war on terror and weapons of mass destruction which is linked to terror and all that, they go to Iraq and invade and occupy Iraq - the world's second biggest oil exporter and as a result of controlling Iraq they also control another vital resource in the middle east that becomes more important in the future- water.

Iraq, one country which has the richest water resource in the entire region, they control that. It is expected that future wars will be over water. If you look at the strategic location of Iraq in Central and West Asia, it's a very strategic country.

The conservative government in Washington argue that water is very important as far as their attempt to re-do the map of the Middle East is concerned, which is what they are trying to do, which has given them an excuse to move into Iraq, re-do the map of the Middle East as a result of what you had done.

Sept 11 gave them the perfect excuse - that the US is under threat of being attacked, so we have protect ourselves from terrorists, from people who want to destroy our way of life - this is the rhetoric, this is the political propaganda they use.

They are able to use this rhetoric because of the foolish actions of people like Osama who have given them an excuse to expand their empire.

There's no doubt at all that the war on terror has become a very convenient excuse to expand their empire.

Even nearer home. Straits of Malacca, for instance. The Philippines, which once chased them out, have welcomed them back.

Yes, their war on terror has been expanded to the Straits of Malacca, except that the littoral states - two of them at least - Malaysia and Indonesia have been resistant, but they want control over the Straits of Malacca.

They returned to the Southern Philippines after Sept 11. They were forced out of Clark airbase after the fall of Marcos, but now they have returned. Again post Sept 11.

So if you look back at all the moves in various places, the war on terror has become a very, very convenient excuse for expanding the tentacles of the empire. That's why I think that in some respects Al Qaeda and the others have been very, very foolish.

What about the inability of other Muslims to respond?

I think this is very important, in a situation where you have one type of response - a response presented by Osama; other Muslims who are not happy with this should turn to their governments and say what is your response. Are you standing up? Are you speaking up? Are you getting together? Mobilising your resources and strengths? Are you saying that we won't allow certain things? That's not happening.

That's because I think a number of Muslim governments are very close to the empire builders and they are a part of the empire. This is what a lot of Muslims don' t realise - that they also helped to facilitate the expansion of the empire.

Let's ask ourselves very simple questions, would the invasion of Iraq have taken place without the support of some of Iraq's neighbours. They allow their airbases and territories to be used.

You know that they have these elites in the Gulf region and elsewhere - they have colluded with the empire builders.

So for a lot of Muslims this is something which has caused a great amount of disillusionment with their leaders, that their leaders don't stand out, in fact they help to oppress the masses of this world, through their collusion with the empire builders. This is why some of the militant groups are not only targeting Washington, London or Tel Aviv, they are also targeting their own governments and they make no bones about it.

So this is part of the problem. If you are looking for leadership from other segments of the ummah - I don't see any leadership. The absence of the leadership I think has contributed to the situation that we are in. It has exacerbated the crisis. The absence of leadership that can use democratic channels, to be able to negotiate and use diplomacy to bring about some changes.

Now I'm not saying that if there were these approaches, changes would take place. In fact there will be people that argue that if you look at what the international institutions have become, even if you use these channels there is no hope of change taking place.

If you look at the United Nations (UN) after 60 years, attempts to reform the UN didn't work.

We have talked about reforms when the UN was 50 years old, 60 years old we talked about reforms - nothing had happened.

Basic power structure remains the same - security council, veto, dominance of the powerful, the 10% veto being ineffective.

Look at other institutions related to the UN - the World Bank. Since the 1998 financial crisis in the region people have been talking about financial architecture - not a single reform has taken place after 1998.

World Bank's fundamental role is to eradicate global poverty but the World bank has not been successful in this. In fact it has contributed to poverty in some instances.

Nothing has happened. Look at the WTO (World Trade Organisation), look at the difficulties of negotiating a global trade agreement, the Doha rounds - it's still going on. You look at all the international institutions, look at attempts to curb nuclear weapons - total failure, no progress, nothing.

Every institution that we look at the situation is not hopeful. Which is what makes one very, very pessimistic about the future because if these institutions don't work, then you are just strengthening the militants because they assume nothing works at the global level.

We should not allow this sort of situation to develop, because what is going to happen is that you have these militants on one hand and you have others that also use violence and terror - meaning the global hegemonic powers will also use violence and terror as in the case of Iraq. So you have two forces pitted against each other. Both believe that violence is the only way. You conquer and then you respond to that conquest also with violence. This will only lead the world to its destruction.

The situation in Iran, which is standing up to the Americans. Could it also end up like Iraq?

The situation in Iraq is very, very bad. The situation is very, very difficult in Iraq. This I think will dissuade the US from trying anything in Iran. Don't forget that 60% of the Muslims in Iran are Shi'ite. Now if you move against Iran, it will inflame passions in Iraq and the Shi'ite population - because of their supreme spiritual leader Ayatollah Sistani. He has been able to hold them back up to this point. In fact they have cooperated with the US. As far as the occupation is concerned it is the Sunnis that have been resisting the occupation. But if the US invades Iran then I think the Shi'ite population in Iraq will respond.

There are many other factors, because Iran is different from Iraq - in terms of nuclear facilities and camouflage, I think they are much better than Iraq. In 1981 Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor in Iraq in a unilateral strike.

Nonetheless if you believe in world domination, if you are the type that has been miscalculating all the while, you can miscalculate again and go to war in Iran - it can happen.

This is also where the Iranian leadership can be more strategic in its response, meaning they should look at the situation carefully and see what is possible, what it can do, what its long-term gains would be.

Iran in some ways has done fairly well in strengthening its position in the region and if you look at what has happened in Iraq, what has happened in Lebanon, what has happened in Afghanistan, in all these countries you will find that the Shi'ite segment of society which was oppressed and suppressed in one way or the other, they have re-emerged. Iraq is one example as a result of the fall of Saddam. In the case of Lebanon you will find that the Shi'ites have become a very, very important factor now, because it was the Shi'ites under the Hezbollah that succeeded in defeating the Israeli army in certain parts of Lebanon and they have become politically very important.

In Afghanistan with the fall of the Taliban - the Taliban oppressed the Shi'ites - you find the Shi'ites have a role in Afghan politics. So the Shi'ite factor has re-emerged and this favours Iran. So Iran has to think about all of this rather than gauge the situation where there is a war and Iran is pulverised, even if you are no pulverised you pay the price in one way or another if there is a war. So I think Iran should avoid a military confrontation.

That's where I think wisdom and strategy become more important than just sort of a reactive approach.

In the case of the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad published by the Danish newspapers. Do you think Muslims over-reacted?

One should not be surprised that Muslims reacted because of their love for the Prophet which is deep and profound as far as Muslims are concerned. This is something Muslims - doesn't matter what their school of thought or community is - their love is profound.

But the reaction in some parts of the Muslim world to my mind merely helped to reinforce the stereotypes about Muslims. Why do I say this? Because they reacted in a violent manner. If the purpose of the cartoons was to depict Islam as a violent religion - because way the Prophet was depicted - but by reacting in a violent manner, you are just reinforcing the stereotypes. I think it was very foolish to react in that manner. I remember telling people at a meeting in Doha, right in the midst of this cartoon crisis a few weeks ago that maybe when the Danish imams first responded to the cartoons at the end of 2005. What they should have done is to say, hey look these cartoons ... you talk of freedom of expression ... we demand media space to respond to what you have done.

Write to this newspaper, other Danish newspapers and maybe other papers in Europe, explaining why Muslims feel this way about the Prophet and why this depiction of the Prophet as the head of a violent religion is a travesty of justice. We should explain why this is a travesty of justice. It's so easy to explain. Look at the whole history of Islam. Look at the history and life of the Prophet himself - how he responded to taunts, insults and attacks - physical attacks upon his person.

Outside Mecca once he was taunted and assaulted, but he refused to react. This was the mark of a human being and this is something people should understand. You want to defend the honour of the Prophet but you are not prepared to emulate the Prophet. This is so wrong. The way some of them reacted was wrong. There are other ways to respond to insults of this sort. Why does one have to be so violent, at least some of them. I want to emphasise that a lot of Muslims also reacted in a very rational way but there were also Muslims who reacted in a very irrational manner.

There seems to be a lot of signs of ethnic tensions in our country. Why do you think this is happening?

Tensions I suppose one could classify into two categories, one is tensions which are the product of specific instances, like what we see now, tensions of that sort. Number two is what we should be more concerned about - tensions which are manifestations of deep-seated problems between communities.

Now some of the incidents, episodes over the last few weeks and months related to the way in which Islam is perceived by certain circles, Muslims and non-Muslims looking at Islam in a certain way. I think this has contributed to it. Which I think really underscores the importance of developing a better understanding of each other's religion and culture. Indepth understanding of one another - this has not happened at all in our country. We have remained - this is a cliche that I have used for a very long time - a nation of strangers.

We know a few things about each other's culture, religion but in-depth understanding is not there and this I think has to be developed. For instance Syariah law, because this has been at the centre of some of the incidents of late. Let's look at the non-Muslim reaction to Syariah. We're not talking about masses. We're talking about lawyers, professionals, academics and others - there is a knee jerk reaction against the Syariah among non-Muslims in this country. When you mention Syariah - oh! it's wrong! it's bad! cannot have the Syariah! and so on. I think one needs to be a little more balanced in one's approach. One needs to say let's find out what this is all about. A lot of non-Muslim lawyers in this country for instance know nothing about the Syariah and yet they tend to react all the while to the Syariah without understanding.

This is to my mind a good example of legal illiteracy as far as a system of law is concerned. The Syariah has got a very long history behind it and it is something that has evolved over time. There are some wonderful principles in the Syariah if you look at it in-depth - almost every area of life.

So among the educated we don't have such a balanced view. With civil law there may be some differences or similarities - let's try to understand. Now that's one side.

On the Muslim side, you find a lot of Muslim professionals and their response to Syariah is that it is divine law. You must not forget that 90% of Syariah is a product of historic evolution. It is made by human beings over a period of time, by great jurists who in their historical context looked at certain principles and tried to understand. Because I find that the laws they made and edicts they came out with, the rules that they produced was their attempt to apply their minds to their setting - over a long period of time.

What we call Fiqh (jurisprudence) in Islam is a product of evolution. It is the roots of the Syariah that are in the Quran which one would regard as divine. Certain underlying principles and values in the Quran pertaining to human conduct which one would regard as divine, but not all the rules and regulations that were developed over a long period of time.

So I think Muslims must also approach the Syariah in a more evaluative manner and look at it in terms of its strengths. Syariah as it applies to the 21st century - what is it that you can apply today, what is it that you can't apply today - there should be that sort of attitude that one doesn't see amongst the Muslims in this country. You have sort of a blind, unthinking approach on one side, and you have a knee jerk reaction on the other and this doesn't help ethnic relations.

It's not the episodes from time to time that concerns me - these are merely part of the symptoms. I think what really concerns me is that as religion impacts more and more upon daily life - and it's going to happen. Way back in the early 80's when I wrote a book about the signs of Islamic resurgence in Malaysia, I said in that book that religion was going to become a major new divider in our society in the future. This is why it is going to happen. As religion becomes more and more important people are going to coalesce on religion. If you don't have an enlightened approach towards religion then imagine what the consequences will be in a society like ours and I think this is what is happening. That religion is becoming more and more important not just in this country but also all around the world.

In Malaysia we know why it has become a more important identity marker because if you look at the Malay community, in 60's it was language but as the 70's and 80's unfolded religion had become a more important identity marker. Why? Because the Malay language had become more of a common language.

So religion has become an identity marker and this is why you find more and more issues related to religion. When we talk to ethnic polarisation - people not mixing with one another, Muslim kids not going to non-Muslim homes, non-Muslim kids not going to Muslim homes, ethic relations and so on.

Many of these issues are related to what I regard as a superficial understanding of religion. The problem is not with religion as such but the way you understand religion. That Islam does not prohibit people from interacting with one another. It does not prohibit people from establishing close bonds with people who are from a different religion.

All the more reason why we should have interfaith dialogues. Doesn't Islam encourage this?

Of course it does. In fact if you look at the history, this is the first religion in history to have encouraged interfaith dialogue.

The first major work on interfaith dialogue was was written by a Muslim by the name of Al-Biruni who died in 1051. Very famous thinker who wrote this classic work called kitab Al-Hindh which was on Hinduism. One of the things he said in that book was that you must put yourself in the shoes of the other person to understand about his religion É, which is a profound statement and he made out various principles of interfaith interaction. If you look at the first encyclopaedia of religions, it is also an encyclopaedia produced by a Muslim known as As-Shahrastani who lived in the 12th century. He was one of the first persons to write an encyclopaedia on religions. It also discussed the Buddha and Buddhism with a great deal of understanding and objectivity. He probed the five precepts - the Panchasila and the 10 precepts the Dashasila.

Look at the openness, but today you find that Muslims are afraid of dialogue, they are afraid of interactions, which is the Islamic heritage. In terms of dialogue, interaction, understanding and so on things have changed greatly, which is a pity. In our society it's because we are a stature and identity based society - a society that is so preoccupied with ethnic identity. It is something that permeates our entire society. This is the problem. You can only transcend that if you begin to see the other as also a human being like you and if you begin to understand this common bond which is the sort of understanding they had at that time.

What of our efforts at interfaith dialogue?

I think that the people who pushed for the idea also bungled. I think that it is an idea which is important. This country of all countries should be at the forefront of interfaith dialogue and interaction. In fact, if I may mention - Muslims that really know Islam are not afraid of interfaith dialogue. The former president of Iran Mohammed Khatami had set up an international institute for the dialogue of cultures and civilisations after he finished his term as president. It had a centre in Tehran before and now he decided to set up an international centre for the dialogue of culture and civilisations and he has asked me to be member of the governing council. This will be based in Tehran.

I feel that our society, multiracial and multireligious, should take the lead in these kinds of things, but we have failed. And others like Iran which is 98% Muslim, you have a president who is actually a distinguished scholar and philosopher, who sees the importance of this sort of dialogue and understanding. It is not just getting to know one another, it is understanding humanity and feeling that there is a common human bond and that is what dialogue is all about.